Trendpills
A Sacramento Superior Court jury has awarded $16.8 million to a former state prison psychologist who alleged he was retaliated against after reporting a death threat from an inmate. Dr. Kevin Sawyer, who worked at Mule Creek State Prison, claimed that instead of protecting him, his superiors launched an internal investigation into his conduct, ultimately forcing him out of his job.
The case stems from an incident where an inmate threatened to kill Sawyer and his family. After Sawyer reported the threat, he alleged that supervisors at the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) failed to take appropriate safety measures. According to the lawsuit, the department’s response was not to support him but to question his integrity and attempt to transfer him to another facility. This series of actions, Sawyer’s attorneys argued, amounted to whistleblower retaliation and created a hostile work environment that led to his constructive dismissal.
The jury sided with Sawyer, agreeing that the department’s actions were retaliatory. The significant financial award is intended to cover lost wages and emotional distress. In a statement following the verdict, the CDCR mentioned it takes all threats against staff seriously and is “reviewing the verdict and assessing its options,” which could include an appeal. The details of the whistleblower retaliation case underscore the conflict between employee safety concerns and institutional responses within the correctional system.
This verdict arrives in a legal landscape where courts have been reinforcing employee protections. Recent decisions in the state have continued to shape the legal framework, with the California Supreme Court expanding employee whistleblower protections in related contexts. Cases like Dr. Sawyer’s highlight the critical role of legal safeguards for employees who report misconduct or danger in the workplace, particularly in high-risk environments like state prisons. The outcome serves as a significant precedent for whistleblowing doctors and their right to sue before exhausting internal administrative processes.
